F e>g3 




^ 

^ 




KANSAS AFFAIRS. 



SPEECH 



OP / 

HON. GEORGE E.- PUGH, OF OHIO, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JU LY 2 , 1856. 




The Senate having under consideration the report in favor 
of printing twenty thousand extra copies of the bill to 
enable the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a 
constitution — 

Mr. PUGH said: 

Mr. President: I amnot disposed to renew this 
discussion at any other time; and as it is neces- 
sary that I should correct one misrepresentation 
of my colleague, personal to myself, I will say a 
few words, also, in reference to the topics which 
have been debated. 

I had objections, Mr. President, to the bill 
nrhich passed the Senate last week, but I did not 
think it worth while, after a continuous session 
of twenty hours, when all around me were so 
much exhausted, to explain those objections at 
any length. I doubted whether Kansas had a suf- 
ficient population to warrant her admission as a 
State; but I never said, (as my colleague asserts,) 
that the lack of ninety thousand inhabitants was 
an insuperable objection. I did say the lack of 
thirtythousand was an insuperable objection; and 
I said, also, from the votes cast in October, 1855, 
the Territory could not have contained that num- 
ber, by five or six thousand, at the time of the 
session of the Topeka convention. I confess, 
sir, I have no distinct evidence, to this hour, that 
Kemsas contains thirty thousand inhabitants; and 
it was upon this point, chiefly, I had to overcome 
doubts. 

Mr. WADE. I stated only from recollection 
what my colleague said. It occurred to me that 
he did say there should be ninety-three thousand, 
the amount required in the original bill; but it 
may be as he has stated. I did not profess to be 
accurate on the point. I quoted from memory. 



Mr. PUi. ' I should not have rcf rred to the 
subject at all, but that, when I rose Lo correct my 
colleague's statement— supposing he had misap- 
prehended me— he refused to allow the correc- 
tion, and insisted upon the accuracy of his own 
words. I knew what my views were at the time, 
and thought I remembered my language. Since 
the occurrence, however, I have examined the 
report of my speech, and it was just as I said. 
My insuperable objection was to the lack of 
thirty thousand inhabitants, and because I believe 
the Constitution requires that number in the case 
of every new State, when it declares that the ratio 
for Representatives shall never be less than thirty 
thousand. I thought the admission of new States, 
with ten or twenty thousand inhabitants, would 
be an infringement of the Federal compact, and, 
considering the number of our Territories at 
present, of very dangerous consequence. 

The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Collamer,] 
when he submitted his views as a member of the 
Committee on Ten-itories, only claimed twenty- 
five thousand inhabitants for Kansas, and that 
claim was based upon the votes given in October 
last. I repeat, sir, the evidence is not conclusixe 
to my mind, that the population of Kansas has 
increased, even as yet, to thirty thousand. But 
the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] de- 
clares that it is forty thousand; and one of the 
Senators from Massachusetts [Mr. Somner] has 
risen tonearly or quite sixty thousand. It seemed 
to be conceded on all sides, and affirmed by the 
vote of the other House, that there had been a 
large increase of population in Kansas during the 
past eight months; and so, for the sake of peace, 



"T^./ 



assenting to what appeared to be the opinion 
of those Senators with whom I generally vote — 
assenting to what I supposed were the wishes of 
the Opposition — assenting to the course adopted 
by the House of Representatives — I consented 
to act upon the supposition that Kansas had 
now attained the limit of thirty thousand inhabi- 
tants. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Geter] 
appeared to have some doubt in this regard, and 
expressed himself to that effect; but he sacrificed 
all doubts, nobly, for the ^ke of conciliation and 
peace. 

TheSenatorfromKcntucky [Mr. Crittenden] 
also expressed a doubt. What those two Sen- 
ators said, just before the final vote, so fully ex- 
plained my own views, that I did not wish to add 
a single word. So much for the inconsistency 
of which my colleague accused me. I said also, 
in my speech, that I would not be disposed to 
admit a State with less population, by two 
thirds, than the existing ratio of representation. 
I would only agree to that in extraordinary cir- 
cumstances. I still adhere to the declaration. 
But, sir, these are extraordinary circumstances, 
and they have become so, in a great degree, since 
my speech was delivered. If what my colleague 
has said be true — if there be any foundation at 
all for the constant assertions of those with whom 
he acts — this is a case in which I am bound to 
surrender every consideration short of constitu- 
tional duty, in order to establish peace in the 
Territory, and — if it be not, alas! too late — re- 
store peace to our almost distracted Union. 

Mr. President, I care little whether the motion 
under debate be or be not adopted. I do not 
imagine that twenty thousand copies of the " pa- 
cification" bill (as it has been rightly named) will 
answer the public demand, or even suffice to in- 
form the country of its provisions. I have no 
such idea. Nor do I believe that one hundred 
thousand copies would accomplish the purpose. 
To me, therefore, it is immaterial whether the 
motion be adopted or rejected. Already, in the 
newspapers of the Opposition, a studious attempt 
has been made to deceive the people as to its 
character. It is called "the Kansas slave State 
bill," not only in editorial paragraphs, but in 
letters and telegraphic dispatches. And even here, 
to our very faces, several Senators have asserted 
— not that the bill was calculated to make Kansas 
a slave State — not that such would be its tendency 
or effect — but that the purpose, the intention, the 
deliberate design of those who voted for it was 
to make Kansas a slave State. The Senator from 
Maine [Mr. Fessenden] has asserted this, and 
asaorted also that it is a parliamentary charge. 



I say that it is not. It is unparliamentary, im- 
proper, and abusive; and if the Senator expects 
to employ such language in any debate with me, 
he might as well prepare for a retort. I main- 
tain, sir, that the rules of the Senate do not tol- 
erate an assertion like that. On reflection, to be 
sure, he has excepted the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. Crittenden] out of this unprecedented de- 
nunciation; but he persists in the charge that all 
the rest of us, from the North as well as from the 
South, although upon the sanction of our oaths, 
before God and the country, we have professed 
that our sole purpose, intention, and design, wa3 
to adopt a fair measure — one which should truly 
ascertain the will of the actual inhabitants of 
Kansas, are perpetrating a deliberate falsehood. 
Who is this Senator, pray, that he should thus 
pronounce other Senators to be hypocrites and 
knaves? This, I suppose, is the " free speech" 
of which we have heard so much, and which no 
man must presume to question in or out of the 
Senate Chamber. I repeat, sir, such language 
is neither parliamentary nor excusable. 

I agree that any Senator has a right to declare 
that the provisions of the bill are s».ch, or the 
circumstances under which it is propo«ed are 
such, that the legitimate consequence will be to 
make Kansas a slave State. That is a proposi- 
tion I can discuss with him; and to that even the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] con- 
fined himself in his last address. But when a 
Senator exceeds that limit, and undertakes to 
impute an intention to his fellow Senators, con- 
trary to what they have professed, he violates all 
the decorum of debate, and the privileges of those 
who are compelled to hear him. And, sir, when- 
ever it is attempted, offensively, towards me, I 
shall claim an equal degree of indulgence — and 
the right to say (what I now say of the assertion 
of the Senator from Maine) that, so far as lam 
concerned, it is entirely without foundation or 
excuse. 

Well, Mr. President, we attempted to settle 
the Kansas question fairly, so far as we could 
settle it. I have stated the points upon which I 
yielded. I do not agree with the Senator from 
New York, that the day for compromise has 
passed. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky 
that, saving the Constitution, I will compromise 
to the last syllable of recorded time, if I can 
thereby promote the peace of the Union, and the 
welfare of the individual States. I have contrib- 
uted my share; other Senators have made their 
contributions. The bill was not introduced at 
my suggestion, nor after any consultation with 
mc. I found it here upon my return from the 



West, and examined it as well as I eould. Tlie 
result was a determination to give it my support. 
1 sympathized also in the invitation extended 
by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to 
those who claim to be the especial friends of the 
free-State party'in Kansas — an invitation to pro- 
pose any amendment which would render the bill 
more acceptable to them, and yet preserve its 
principles. I had read, in the Globe newspaper, 
that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Hale] declared it a bill almost unexceptionable — 
such, perhaps, was his very language — and I 
rejoiced in the hope that, from all this confusion 
and tumult, this bitterness in Congress and out 
of Congress, in Kansas and everywhere else, a 
path of deliverance had been discovered, and that 
we could all agree, at last, upon terms of fair and 
honorable adjustment. That Senator has not 
assigned an excuse satisfactory, in my judgment, 
for since voting against the bill. 

If any reason, worthy to be called such, had 
been alleged for his motion to strike out the 4th 
of July, 1856, and insert a later period, I should 
have voted in favor of it. But, sir, what was the 
pretext alleged ? Alerely, that he had no confi- 
dence in the President of the United States. Did 
the Senator expect those of us who voted for 
Franklin Pierce to unite in a condemnation so 
broad and unqualified ? The very pretext was 
an insult to us. 

This question, then, is not to be settled; that 
is the notice which we have received. Its settle- 
nient is to be postponed until after the presiden- 
tial election. And wherefore .' 

At the commencement of the session, you will 
recollect, the Senator from New York jTVIr. 
Seward] proclaimed that Kansas stood at our 
door linocking for admission; and he demanded 
whether the Senate would drive her away from 
this place of refuge — would coldly drive her back 
to anarchy and bloodshed .' That inquiry was 
propounded time and again. Kansas, it was said, 
is ready to rush into your arms; will you receive 
her ? For if you receive her — it was also said — 
everything will be well. Now, Mr. President, 
we have agreed to receive her; we have opened 
the doors of the Senate Chamber; we have 
invited her to present us a constitution adopted 
by her people, and take her place in the Union 
as a State. But, sir, how quickly has the tunc 
changed ? These gentlemen now tell us that 
Kansas docs not wish to be admitted as a State 
for twelve or eighteen months. 

What other amendments were proposed by 
Senators of the Opposition.' Two only of mate- 
rial consequence; and the first of these was a 



recognition of the Topeka constitution. Well, 
sir, I .say of that constitution, as I said before, it 
never was adopted by the people of Kansas, ac- 
cording to its own requirements. I do not need 
any other answer; this alone is conclusive. The 
constitution required, in terms, that it should be 
submitted to a vote of the qualified electors, and 
be ratified by them. It never was so ratified; it 
did not receive the votes of the free-State parti- 
sans; it received no votes of any consequence. 

It is not, therefore, the voice of the people; it is 
not even the voice of the free-State partisans; it 
is only the voice of a handful of men (wc know- 
not whom) assembled in various precincts — for 
in many precincts no votes at all were received — 
assembled under the sanction of no law, and 
with no tests, of any sort, whereby to ascertain 
the qualification of those who voted. We are 
asked to impose this constitution, thus promul- 
gated at a time when the population did not ex- 
ceed twenty-five thousand, on a people which 
now numbers (if the Senator from Massachusetts 
is to be beheved) some sixty thousand. Sir, I am 
ready to argue the cause on that issue. Senators 
need not imagine there is any sentiment of fear 
in my bosom as to the verdict of the American 
people when a proposition so monstrous shall 
have been fairly exposed. 

What else was oflered in the way of amend- 
ment? Why, sir, at the last hour, with a vain 
hope — vain, indeed, it proved — that some further 
concession might satisfy Senators upon the other 
side, I invited them to suggest additional safe- 
guards. It had been alleged, in the course of the 
discussion, that the 4th day of July, 1856, was 
not a fair date by which to ascertain the residence 
of voters, because a large number of the free-State 
partisans had been driven out of the Territory. 
This, certainly, is an exaggeration. How many 
actual settlers have been driven out? I do not 
speak of the number of men lately sent thither, who 
may have been prevented from entering the Terri- 
tory. I ask how many actual settlers have been 
driven out? A thousand? Where arc they ? Are 
they in your State ? Are they in Illinois? I know 
they are not in Ohio. Where, then, upon the 
face of the earth, will you find this vast concourso 
of sufferers ? Sir, this exaggeration is too bold — 
too apparent. Those who have been driven out, 
if any, are few in number. But, to avoid even 
this objection, the ^nator from Illinois [Mr. 
Douglas] added a clause to the bill, under which 
all who have left the Territory through fear, or 
in consequence of any ill usage, are allowed to 
return, to register their names, and to vote. The 
commissioners will be in session , for this pur- 



pose, three or four months. What more could 
be asked ? 

But, it is said, you do not protect these per- 
sons in returning, and after they shall have re- 
turned. What protection do they desire ? One 
Senator alleges that a line of sentinels has been 
stationed upon the western border of Missouri, to 
prevent free-State men from entering Kansas 
through that State. Well, sir, suppose this to 
be true — I do not know whether it is true or 
fslse; I am rather inclined to believe it is false, 
na the statement comes from a quarter whence 
80 many falsehoods have emanated; — but sup- 
pose, 1 say, that it were true: what power has 
Congress over the State of Missouri ? What 
can we do with any such sentinels? What re- 
lief can wc afford to the citizens of San Francisco, 
in California, against the irresponsible, despotic, 
armed oligarchy which now enslaves them, and 
threatens to subvert even their State government? f 
The question is not what would be the best I 
remedy for all the grievances alleged, but what ! 
is the best remedy within our power? There are 
other routes into the Territory; they are not the 
most eligible ones, but they are complete, and are 
the only routes over which Congress can exer- 
cise the least control. What protection, then, is 
requisite ? Let these men return by the way of 
Iowa and Nebraska. This moment, I under- 
stand, Colonel Lane has an encampment in the 
State of Iowa. 

What is the nature of the protection which 
Senators demand. Must we send military offi- 
cers to search for every persecuted free-State 
man, and assign him a body-guard during the 
next four months? Is there no limit, Mr. Pres- 
ident, to human absurdity? 

We have invited these men to return, and 
register their names as qualified voters. They 
pretend to have been oppressed by certain laws, 
and we have stricken those laws out of existence. 
It is alleged that they have been prevented, by 
Tiolence, from approaching the polls: we station 
the troops of the United States by the side of each 
ballot-box to protect all voters from abuse or 
molestation. And we have intrusted this elec- 
tion to five commissioners, who shall be nom- 
inated by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate — commissioners who, as the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Cass] was authorized to state, 
will represent both parties^ We have furnished, 
therefore, every possible safeguard — more than 
our opponents ever suggested, or even imagined. 
Will it be, then, a fair election ? What more can 
be asked ? What more can we provide ? I call 
upon the Senate and the country to take notice 



of the fact, that Senators upon the other side 
have been invited again and again to propose 
any additional safeguards — and have been able to 
propose none. At the last hour, almost, I renewed 
the invitation. I asked them to suggest a pro- 
vision (if they could) for the more effectual pro- 
tection of the inhabitants, and especially those 
who have been driven out. 

Such, Mr. President, was my request; and how 
was it answered? I realized the wisdom of the 
Scriptures. I asked for bread, and received a 
stone — for a fish, and received only a serpent. 
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] rose 
to name his measure of pacification. We had 
been told that Kansas was in a miserable condi- 
tion — that men were slain, women were outraged, 
and property was destroyed. What remedy did 
the Senator propose for all these terrible evils r 
He proposed that even the faint vestiges of law 
in the Territory should be expunged, and that 
fair domain given over to legitimized anarchy and 
lawlessness. This, then, is the proposition of 
Senators who have talkfd so much about peace 
and justice — the utter abrogation of every law, 
and the nullification of the power of every magis- 
trate. All government there is to be at an end: 
and the thousands of people, men, women, and 
children, who have gone thither in the faith of 
our protection, are suddenly to be outlawed by 
the fiat of Congress, and exposed to the wanton 
outrages of any individual. Let me tell the Sen- 
ator from Illinois, and all his supporters, that I 
am prepared for an appeal to the country upon 
that issue also. Indeed, sir, this is the whole 
question to be decided; all else is of no conse- 
quence. If it were ever so true that we had 
abandoned some abstract doctrine, heretofore pro- 
fessed, they could derive no justification from 
the fact. They ought rather to congratulate us 
upon a conversion so marvelous, and not assail 
us with new phrases of abuse and vituperation. 
It would be in better taste, even, to lift up their 
sanctimonious eyes, like the Pharisee of old, and 
thank God they are better than us publicans and 
sinners, who stand afar off, and humbly smite 
our breasts with remorse. 

Sir, I will meet the question, whether we have 
or have not departed from the acknowledged 
principles of the Democratic party, but I will 
not debate it with the Senator. It is a ques- 
tion with which he has no concern. How 
does it become his affair whether I regard the 
doctrines of my party or not ? If I do not regard 
them, here or elsewhere, I shall be called to ac- 
count by the constituted authorities of the party, 
and tried and convicted in due form; but, with all 



respect, I do not consider the Senator one of those 
nuthorities. I do not care what he may have 
be&n in times past. I find by the newspapers that 
heattendeda " Republican" convention not long 
since, and approved the nomination of Messrs. 
Fremont and Dayton. 

In my judgment, however, the pacification bill 
violates no doctrine projiosod or advocated by 
tlie Democratic party heretofore. I believe that 
I understand the doctrine of " popular sover- 
eignty" quite well; and, so far as I do understand 
it, there is nothing to restrain or abridge its full 
operation in the bill which has received the sanc- 
tion of the Senate. 

The question jircscnted upon this subject is, 
whether the actual inhabitants of a Territory shall 
decide the character of their local institutions, or 
submit to the arbitrary decision of Congress in 
that regard? Popular sovereignty and congres- 
sional domination stand opposed to each other. 
The Senator maintains that it is the right of Con- 
gress to govern the Territories in all respects, 
without reference to the will of their inhabitants. 
I deny both the riglifulness and expediency of 
such legislation. I have held this faith ever since 
I had a vote, and expect to continue in the faith. 

Popular sovereignty is not a new idea; nor 
was its application to the case of our Territories 
first suggested by the venerable Senator from 
Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] although I acknowledge 
that he first expressed it in a definite and consist- 
ent form. It was suggested by Jefferson at the 
time of the Missouri compromise; and that will 
a^ipear from several of his letters, those especially 
which he addressed to President Monroe. Jeffer- 
son denied the power of Congress in this regard; 
and he prophesied of the Missouri compromise 
exactly what has since come to pass. 

The same views were entertained by Madison, 
Monroe, Jackson, and Calhoun; but it was re- 
served for the venerable Senator from Michigan 
to proclaim the doctrine of popular sovereignty 
in that definite form in which it was accepted by 
the Democratic party eight years ago. He was 
nominated for the Pixsidency upon that platform. 

General Taylor came into office without having 
awnounced any opinions on this subject. He 
was represented by his friends at the North as 
a staunch " Wilmot proviso" man, and at the 
South as exactly the opposite. All parties, there- 
fore, felt great anxiety to learn what course he 
would pursue. But whatever his own opinions, 
or the professions of his friends. General Taylor 
found himself compelled to adopt the doctrine 
which had been professed by General Cass — the 
doctrine of congressional non-intervention and 



popular sovereignty — and during the brief period 
of his administration he endeavored to maintain 
that doctrine, so far as he could by executive 
influence, in reference to California, New Mex- 
ico, and Utah. 

The administration of Mr. Fillmore came next, 
and with it the great adjustment of 1850. What 
was the principle of that adjustment? It was, 
that all our Territories, when they came to be 
admitted as States, should be received with sla- 
very, or without slavery, as the people might de- 
cide, and not as Congress might decide. What 
is now the doctrine of our opponents? I do not 
presume to declare what it may be in Illinois, 
but I know what it is in Ohio. I need not go 
beyond the resolutions presented here, at this 
session, from the Republican majority of the 
Legislature. 1 need not give my recollection of 
any man's speeches, nor appeal to any obsolete 
platform. The resolutions are here, and have 
been printed by order of the Senate. They de- 
clare that no slaveholding State shall be received 
into the Union, henceforth, in any circumstances, 
or upon any pretext. If that does not contra- 
dict, directly, the compromise of 1850, I confess 
myself unable to understand the force of the 
English language. 

The issue, tiierefore, is whether Congress or 
the people shall decide upon the institutions of a 
now State. There are some Senators belonging 
to the Democratic party who ?toy> at that point. 
I believe the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Hlkja- 
min] does; and, at all events, the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Erowm] and the Senator from 
Georgia [Mr. Toombs] do. I do not. They 
hold that the Constitution of the United St;ites 
restrains the people of the Territories from ex- 
cluding slavery, by law, during the period of the 
territorial government. I do not so understand 
the Constitution. I agree with them, however, 
in this: If the Constitution has restrained the peo- 
ple, as alleged, let them be restrained! What- 
ever the Constitution provides in this particular, 
by that I will stand. I desire no better faw than 
the Constitution; and God knows that I advocate 
no " higher law" for the government of our po- 
litical relations. 

This question being a mere question of con- 
struction, a question as to the powers conferred 
in the Federal Constituyon, we have agn.ed that 
it shall be referred to the judicial authorities for 
determination; and, both as a Senator and a citi- 
zen, I mean to be bound by whatever the judicial 
authorities decide in that respect. At present, 
however, and until the decision, I will entertain, 
and, if necessary, defend my own opinion. Find- 



6 



ing no such restraint in the Constitution as Sen- 
ators have alleged, I believe that, under the terms 
of the Kansas-Nebraska act, each Territorial 
Legislature may prohibit or admit slavery at will 
— not as a permanent decision, to be sure, but 
during the territorial period, or until otherwise 
lawfully provided. 

This question, however, is not involved in the 
pacification bill. We are not debating what shall 
be the condition of affairs in Kansas during ai 
territorial form of government; and hence the i 
utter inappropriateness of two amendments pro-| 
po.scd by the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trum- 
bull,] against which I voted. We are now 
looking to tlie admission of Kansas as a State 
into the Union; and upon that issue the Demo- 
'•ralic Senators, North and South, East and 
Wvst, all agree. We agree, sir, that if the 
actual inhabitants of Kansas do now, fairly, and 
in a legitimate mode, exclude slavery, or estab- 
lish it, by an organic act, their exclusion or estab- 
lishment — I care not which — shall be decisive and 
ultimate. This, in my judgment, is not a/«ror 
CKiifcn-ed on the inhabitants. They have a right 
to decide the issue; and I will maintain their 
right in all places, and at all times, even as against 
tlie supposed sanctity of a liundred Missouri com- 
jiromises. 

The pacification bill which the Senate has 
adopted, so far as I am able to judge of its pro- 
visions, is eminently just towajfd all parties. ItS' 
object is to secure a fair elections If any amend- 
ment can be suggested to perfect this design, or 
more certainly to prevent violence, to prevent 
irregularities, to prevent fraud, to assure each 
(;iiizen of the Territory in the free exercise of 
hi.s riglit of suffrage, I hope that it will be pro- 
posed by the House of Representatives; and, for 
one, I am ready to concur in it. Then, sir, as 
soon as the citizens of Kansas shall have adopted 
their State constitution, whether that constitu- 
tion excludes slavery or establishes it, I will vote 
for the admission of the State without any further 
question. Even the Senator from Vermont [Mr. { 
Collamer] and the Senator froin Illinois [Mr. ' 
Trimbcll] acknowledge that those citizens, I 
when they come to organize a State government, I 
have the right to establish slavery, or exclude it, | 
without any reference to the Missouri compro- j 
mise.oranyotherspeci'j! of territorial legislation. 
Having provided a fair election under this bill, ' 
with all tlie safeguards which occur to me, or can | 
be suggested by others, I have done my part, i 
The citizens of Kansas must do the rest. If they I 
wish to be a non-slaveholding State, and so de- 
clare, 1 shall demand of the Senator from Mis- 1 



souri, [Mr. Geter,] and all other supporters of 
j the bill, a vote for unqualified admission. On the 
! other hand, if the citizens of Kansas declare that 
! they wish to become a slaveholding State — much 
I as I shall regret, individually, their choice — I can 
j discover no pretext founded upon the Constitu- 
I tion, or in any principle of good faith, which 
; would justify me for resisting their admission 
into the Union. 

j How can it be said, therefore, with any regard 
i to truth or justice, that there is any unfairness in 
the bill? "Where is the " fraud" so lustily as- 
serted? "Where is the " cheat" to be found? These 
are hard words. They have been used frequently 
in the course of this session, as if certain Sen- 
ators had an unlimited prerogative to accuse, in- 
sult, and revile the rest of us. It seems to b« 
considered parliamentary, as well as courageous, 
in their code, to impute the worst motives, and 
1 apply the worst language, to their opponents — to 
j make accusations here, under the shadow of sen- 
[atorial privHege, which they would not dare to 
i make elsewhere, and upon equal terms. 

The Territory of Kansas is now convulsed by 
civil war. These Senators themselves proclaim 
the fact. They represent it as worse, much 
worse, than I have seen reason to believe. They 
tell us that the people — our fellow-citizens — men, 
women, children — are in a condition of horribla 
distress. What remedies are proposed? None, 
sir, that can be effectual, or satisfactory, except 
the bill to which the Senate has given its ap- 
proval. Will those Senators defeat the bill ? Will 
their partisans in the other House reject it? I 
adjure you to consider the consequences. Do 
you desire peace in Kansas ? Do you wish to 
have a fair election? Do you intend to allow 
those inhabitants their undoubted rights as Amer- 
ican citizens ? Then assist in the adoption of the 
Senate bill. ■ There is nothing else. If you do 
not assist — if you defeat that bill — if you prolong 
the sorrowful condition of Kansas — if youslim- 
I ulate this unnatural controversy to greater lengths 
— then, I tell you, the curse of every crime which 
may hencefoflh be committed there — the blood 
j of every man who may be slain — the honor of 
! every woman who may be violated — will rise up 
■ in judgment against you. I will not now make 
I the charge — although, as a retort, it would b« 
I justifiable — that you desire a continuance of this 
I anarchy, public distress, and civil war, in order 
} that you may influence the results of the prcei- 
I dential election. That, however, is a question 
I for the country at large; and I shall endeavor, in 
I my humble sphere, to make the country undcr- 
1 eland and appreciate it. 



Here is the sul)stfin live proposition: That with 
fril the safeguards suggested in either House of 
Congress, an election is to bo held in Kansas — 
a State government formed — and peace happily 
restored. What is proposed on the other side? 
First, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] 
wishes to abolish all the laws of the Territory at 
once, and thus legitimate the outrages, the blood- 
shed, the anarchy, which he pretends to deplore. 
Second, he and his political associates offer to 
subjugate the citizens of the Territory to a con- 
stitution which they never ratified — which was 
formed without authority of law — and which 
modestly declares itself unalterable, in any par- 
ticular, for m'ne years ! 

Let the people of the United States consider 
such an issue — ay, sir, let thein decide it. This 
involves everything, connected with our Govern- 
ment, which is worthy of consideration. If 
passion, prejudice, fanaticism — aided by all the 
modern arts and adjuncts of falsehood — can so 
mislead the American people that they will not 
distinguish good from evil — will no longer respect 
tlie fundamental principles of their own Govern- 



ment — will rashly mutilate that sacred compact, 
THE Federal CovsriTuriov, in which all the 
securities of our Union, our peace, our liberty, 
our happiness, reside, — it is of little consequence 
who may be the next President, and whether 
Congress should ever again' assemble. The ex- 
periment of popular institutions will have utterly 
failed; for, without patriotism, intelligence, virtue, 
and self-command, a popular government must 
fall into confusion and despotism at last. 

In any event, Mr. President, I can do nothing 
more. I have sacrificed every scruple, every 
minor consideration, to an ardent desire for peace. 
I have gone to the extremity of concession. I 
have agreed to whatever is honest and fair; and I 
am yet willing to vote for any amendment or 
scheme of that character which can be suggest- 
ed. If the Opposition will not meet us in this 
spirit — if the Senate pacification bill should be 
rejected by the House — I must discharge mvself 
henceforth of all responsibility as a Senator and 
a citizen. I shall have performed my duty to the 
uttermost; no blood will be upon my skirts, nor 
any reproach upon my conscience. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



016 089 357 64 



